Subject: Sub-IP: A lurker's view, choose Option 1

From: grenville armitage <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 09:52:05 +1100

I haven't been involved in, or even particularly tracking, Sub-IP
efforts since the start of 2001. That makes me either irrelevant or
independent, your choice.  I was lurking around some of the Sub-IP
topics prior to November 2000, so my perspective is probably past
its 'best before' date. Nevertheless...

I suggest Sub-IP needs to fold/fade as per its original goals, and
the remaining WGs moved to regular Areas.  If a good argument can
later be made for re-constituting a Sub-IP (or similar) area, then
let that argument be made from scratch.

I think that maps most closely Harald's Option 1 (I'd pick Option 3
if it explicitly clarified that no new WGs could be added to Sub-IP,
but without the protection of such a clause I have to pick Option 1).

Why? A couple of thoughts.

 - This discussion isn't about whether the related work itself is valuable.
   It is about the utility of an entire Area dedicated to Sub-IP.
   Different things.

 - A thought: "IP networking" involves routing, transport, e2e ('internet'),
   and security issues (at least), and the IETF has Areas to deal with each. 
   In 2000 it was broadly observed that some subnetwork technologies were
   absorbing IP-ish protocols and methods (e.g. MPLS and derivatives)
   and that other virtual network technologies were being built over/around/inside
   existing "IP networks". Despite the fact that each of these work areas have
   routing, transport, and security implications we somehow decided it could
   all be handled by a single, Sub-IP Area. This has all the halmarks of a
   short-term "until we can figure out where to properly put them" solution.
   The short-term is over, now assign the work out into the appropriate routing,
   transport, internet, or security areas.

 - I'm not convinced by arguments of Sub-IP participants that their
   Area must go on (or grow on). I've been immersed enough in WG work
   before to know the temptation of self-importance. Having one's own
   area would be pretty important. But I'm not convinced these WGs
   are best served by being supported outside the other IETF areas.
   (And see point 1 above that this isn't a debate about the value, per se,
    of the work being done in Sub-IP)

cheers,
gja
-- 
Grenville Armitage
http://caia.swin.edu.au